Oil prices to stay around $65/barrel: Hardeep Puri
New Delhi:
Oil prices
will hover around $65 per barrel as ample supplies are available in the market, Oil Minister
Hardeep Singh Puri
has said.
'My sense is that with more supplies becoming available, prices will be close to $65, not $80 per barrel,' Puri told an industry gathering on Friday.
International benchmark
Brent
has been oscillating between $60 and $66 for a month amid increasing supplies from the producer group OPEC+ and rising demand uncertainties due to the US tariff war.
High spare production capacity is weighing on the oil market, Puri said. 'Even when there are disruptions, the market knows that more supply is available,' he added, noting that one has to be 'intelligent' in using the opportunity provided by low oil prices. 'Obviously, when you have strategic reserves, you want to fill them up when the price is low.'
The government has allocated ?5,600 crore in this year's budget to fill the nation's part-empty Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR).
Puri said global supplies could further rise in the future if sanctions are lifted on Iran and Russia. 'I'm optimistic that, at some stage, the [sanctions] issue will be resolved. Iran will become a major supplier again,' he said, adding that Russia could also ramp up production.
Iran accounted for a tenth of India's crude imports until 2018, when the reimposition of US sanctions shut it out of the Indian market.
The US is currently renegotiating with Iran to strike a deal that would lift sanctions in return for Tehran's promise to halt its nuclear weapons programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Hafiz Saeed-led outfit leaders claim involvement in Hasina's ouster
Some leaders of the banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) of Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed have claimed that their outfit played a role in last year's mass anti-government protests in Bangladesh that led to the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. The claims by JuD — Saifullah Kasuri and Muzammil Hashmi, a UN-designated terrorist — came during their speeches earlier this week. 'I was four-year-old when Pakistan was dismembered in 1971. The then Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had declared that she'd drowned the two-nation theory in Khaleej (Bay of Bengal). On May 10… we have taken the revenge of 1971,' Kasuri said while addressing his supporters in Allahabad, Rahim Yar Khan, Lahore. He also said that one of his fellows, Mudassar, was killed in the Indian airstrike on Muridke (JuD/LeT headquarters) on May 7 in response to the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives on April 22. 'I was not allowed to attend his funeral. On the day of his funeral, I cried a lot,' Kasuri said. He did not reveal who stopped him from attending Mudassar's funeral. On the other hand, the top military, police and civilian bureaucracy of Punjab province of Pakistan were among those who attended Mudassar and two other JuD members' funerals. 'I was in my constituency meeting with the people when the Pahalgam incident took place. India made me the mastermind of this attack. India made my city, Kasur, popular in the world,' Kasuri said. 'We are preparing the next generation for jihad…We are not afraid of dying,' he said. In his speech in Gujranwala, some 80 kms from Lahore, a few days ago, Hashmi, referring to the Indian leadership, said, 'We defeated you in Bangladesh last year…' He was referring to Hasina's ouster on August 5 following massive anti-government protests led by students. Hasina fled to India, and three days later, Muhammad Yunus took over as the Chief Adviser of the interim government. The ties between Bangladesh and Pakistan saw a quantum jump after Hasina's ouster. 'The rhetoric of Jihadi extremists at their public rallies makes it difficult for the rest of the world to believe official assertions that Pakistan is no longer sponsoring or tolerating them,' Pakistan's former diplomat Hussain Haqqani said, reacting to the speeches by the JuD leaders.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC bins plea against demolition of tenements of Hindu refugees from Pakistan
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking a stay on the proposed demolition of an illegal colony set up by Hindu refugees from Pakistan along the Yamuna river in north Delhi till an alternative plot of land is allotted to the affected people. The court also vacated an interim stay it had granted on March 12 against the demolition. Justice Dharmesh Sharma on Friday rejected the plea filed by a man named Ravi Ranjan Singh, seeking orders to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the refugees a different spot in the city as per the provisions in the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, before demolishing their tenements. Mr. Singh argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was framed with the idea of providing Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from the neighbouring countries, to help them escape religious persecution. 'Must be a citizen' However, the court said that it 'has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought by way of the present petition' because to be eligible to avail of the provisions of the Delhi government policy, the person seeking relief 'must first and foremost be a citizen of India'. 'On account of their nationality, the Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB policy,' it added. The court asked the petitioner, as well as the other refugees, to first acquire Indian citizenship, adding that it could 'be done online with ease' and asked the Delhi State Legal Service Authority to help the refugees to comply with the necessary legal formalities. Remarks against Centre The court added that 'even Indian citizens cannot claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases where the land they occupy falls under specially prohibited areas like Zone 'O' of Delhi, i.e., the Yamuna floodplains'. Justice Sharma also made observations regarding the court's attempts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees, saying all its 'efforts have been unfruitful, seemingly due to the classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of the Union of India'. The judge added, 'Nevertheless, this court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
How do military standoffs affect aviation?
The story so far: After the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, India initiated a series of measures against Pakistan that included the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. In response to India's calibrated steps, Pakistan issued a NOTAM (notice to airmen), closing its airspace to Indian aircraft from April 24 to May 23 — multiple air traffic routes were unavailable across the north and south as well as a part of the Arabian Sea. India responded with a similar NOTAM on April 30, that was effective till May 23. Also Read | India extends airspace ban for Pakistan airlines till June 23 What happened after the hostilities? After India's tri-service Operation Sindoor (May 7-10), Pakistan opened its airspace resulting in some foreign airlines resuming overflights. However, both countries have again issued fresh notices, closing their airspace to Indian ('till June 24, 4.59 a.m., Pakistan Airports Authority') and Pakistan aircraft (June 23), respectively. Is there a history of airspace closure? Prof. Mohammad Owais Farooqui, Assistant Professor of Aerospace Law, Department of Public Law, College of Law, University of Sharjah, has told The Hindu that in the 1950s, India had objected to Pakistan's declaration of a 'prohibited zone' along its frontier as discriminatory as it allowed overflights by other nations. The dispute was resolved diplomatically but set a precedent that such restrictions must have bona fide security justifications. The Hindu's archives show that airspace closure has been a major issue corresponding with the state of bilateral ties. Following the 1965 India-Pakistan war, a report, 'Overflights from Feb. 10: Indo-Pak. Accord: Air Services to be Resumed From March 1' (The Hindu, February 8, 1966), highlighted 'an in principle agreement to allow overflights and a resumption of normal Pakistani and Indian services from March 1'. Pakistan also wanted a direct link to Dacca (Dhaka), which was cut off in the war in September. The report said that 'to reach East Pakistan from the west wing, Pakistan aircraft at present have to fly by Ceylon, a detour of more than 2,000 miles and that international flights have been forced to operate from Karachi to Bombay — across the Arabian Sea (connections to New Delhi are picked up from Bombay)'. In 1971, there was another ban following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines Fokker F-27 flight (Srinagar-Jammu) on January 30 to Pakistan. The passengers were released in Lahore and the plane was destroyed (burnt). A report, 'Pak. Civil Overflights Also Banned' (February 4, 1971), detailed India's banning of civilian overflights as well as continuing an existing ban on military aircraft until 'Pakistan had satisfactorily settled the question of compensation for the Indian aircraft'. The report said that flights in both countries were affected (Pakistan 'much more than India'). This incident also saw India filing a case in the World Court after Pakistan lodged a complaint with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the United Nations Security Council against the overflight ban. The World Court ruled (14-2 vote) that ICAO had jurisdiction over the issue. The issue was resolved in June 1976, with India and Pakistan signing a memorandum of understanding on resumption of overflights and flights. Since then, there have been other closures and normalisations, with major events being the Kargil war (1999), the Indian Parliament attack (2001) and the Balakot airstrikes (2019). Also Read | Brace for longer flights to the Gulf, Europe and the U.S. as Pakistan shuts its airspace Is there an estimate of the losses? In 2002, India's Ministry of Civil Aviation was to seek budgetary support for Indian airlines after estimates of losses (Air India ₹40 crore a year; Indian Airlines ₹3.4 crore and the Airports Authority of India ₹5 crore from landing and parking charges and also overflights). Pakistan's losses were estimated to be five times more, according to the Minister of Civil Aviation. In 2019, the collective losses of Indian carriers were put at ₹548.93 crore (Rajya Sabha reply). A PTI report said Pakistan had suffered a $50 million loss. According to IATA, before the ban, at least 220 flights used Pakistan's airspace to operate between Asia and Europe. In 2025, the consolidated loss for the Indian aviation sector (including cargo) may be around ₹7,000 crore (indicative figure), according to reports that cite industry sources. Data reports based on the 2019 closure show that Pakistan lost approximately $2,32,000 every day in overflight charges and $3,00,000, if landing, parking and navigation fees were added. What were the airspace changes in 2025? There was a temporary closure of 32 airports across northern and western India. There was also a temporary closure of 25 segments of Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes within the Delhi and Mumbai Flight Information Regions (FIRs), 'unavailable from ground level to unlimited altitude' for aviation safety. Overflights were 'funnelled' along certain air routes, with Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Kolkata and Chennai air traffic control managing the traffic. In 2019, as many as 500 flights were rerouted overnight. On May 7, during Operation Sindoor, there were close to 500 aircraft (20% were Indian aircraft) movements from Indian airspace to Pakistan, aviation sources have told The Hindu. Some of the air routes used included N571, P574, L301, L505 and L639, in turn linked to flight management with the Muscat FIR. There was also a 30% increase in aircraft movement per hour, with peak hour traffic put at 40 aircraft. In air navigation terms, India and Pakistan share close to 12 waypoints, through which the Mumbai and Delhi FIRs feed air traffic, while there are six waypoints between the Mumbai and Muscat FIRs. The sources said that the traffic load from the 12 waypoints was shifted to these six waypoints. Established air traffic management procedures were used such as minimum aircraft separation standards (vertical, crossing and lateral for east and west-bound traffic). Flightradar24's director of communications has told The Hindu that there are few alternative routes via China due to the regimented nature of Chinese airspace and the presence of high mountains which can impact safe flight operations. Any routing that is less than optimal would add time and cost, he said. Will international aviation law hold? Prof. Farooqui says that while international aviation law provides mechanisms for redress, their effectiveness depends on political will and an understanding of the nuanced facts of this bilateral standoff.
